Method before power
The design principle that a legal order should enact its rules of interpretation before it allocates institutional power, so that no later institution can choose its interpretive method to suit the outcome it wants.
First used in Canons of Constitutional Interpretation of Gibsonia
The principle appears in the preamble of the Gibsonian canons as De Modo, Non De Potestate: concerning method, not power.
The Institute's scholarly treatment distinguishes a power constitution, which allocates competence, from an interpretive constitution, which specifies how exercises of competence are to be understood. Adopting method first is a form of second-order precommitment: the rules are chosen before anyone knows which disputes or constituencies they will favor.
The claim is not that interpretive rules are neutral, or that judgment disappears. It is that disagreement becomes more bounded, transparent and auditable, and that a finite, ordered set of admissible interpretive moves is what makes interpretation computationally tractable in the first place.
Related terms
Related frameworks
The Gibsonian Canons of Constitutional Interpretation
A closed, priority-ordered law of interpretation, enacted before any institution is given power to interpret, that binds every interpreter to the same method and requires a traceable record of each interpretation.
Version Control for Law
Legal interpretation can be governed like a versioned codebase: enacted text is the protected main branch, opinions are signed commits, dissents are preserved branches, and overruling is a force push allowed only through logged, gated conditions.